Too many foreigners: You see it yourself every day. Public infrastructure overwhelmed. Singaporeans feeling out of place.

No accountability: Arguably, firing a minister, a rare commodity as asserted by the ruling party, would mean losing talent. But did they even apologize in public upfront when the incident happen? No, we only see a lot of defensive arguments.

Disconnection with the ground: George Yeo admitted this in Straits Times. SM Goh said he don’t understand young voters.

High ministerial salary not attracting talents: When there’s only a handful of non-ex-civil servants running for elections.

Arrogance: PM Lee apologized. Only when he discover the ground is not sweet, serious threat from opposition, and a few days from Polling day, with no admitting of policy shortcomings during the last 5 years.

Which of the above ’emotional’ issues are not justified logically? The ruling party also promote themselves as more capable super beings, who deserve the million dollars paycheck, than ‘incompetent and inexperienced oppositions’. In the meantime, PAP leveraged on your ‘cognitive reference to the past’ and asserted how good their own candidates are. Their message reads: [Never mind a Harvard grad. Never mind a Rhodes Scholar. Never mind an elected MP. A fresh ex-general, banker and 28 year old with 7 years of ‘grassroot experience’ are far more capable than all these oppositions.] So tell me, who is the illogical party here?

Logic 1: It is too dangerous to have only one party. It is too dangerous to depend only on one party. If George Yeo is not replaceable, what is the backup plan should any minister have any disaster, such as lightning strike, fell on them? Will Singapore then crumble?

Logic 2: Past success does not translates to future success. Just ask any investors in the stock market.